Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I see that those who do study the relationship between spiritual and Religious and Aikido are still questioning what it is.

Well, I find it interesting that the thread on no competition and then the column By Peter Goldsbury mention it too.

So first, Peter Goldsbury. A great historian. What do I like about him? He does what a good historian does as far as I am concerned....he compares and contrasts 'scholarly' opinions and even offers more potentially interesting and related sources. He does too but in a humble manner offer his own personal opinions as to where all this leaves his view.

His style of writing and presentation is of itself in essence non competitive.

So to shinto and indeed omoto. Not being of the scholarly and intellectual 'crew' for those who are I would say to understand O'Senseis religious (spiritual) views it is best to understand the basic difference religion wise when comparing what those of western religion think they are comparing to.

Western religions and thus cultures brought up with them are used to them being competitive. They compete and fight and war with each other and thus see themselves as superior. Of course thus they see the other as inferior. This is thus called 'normal' and considered normal alas.

Scholars probably have words for all this and for me if they have the right words for it then they may see the important and thus when it comes to Aikido the pertinent differences. Personally I find the Omoto type religion and Buddhist generally far in advance Ethically than the well known western ones. Why? Well I actually don't think it's the religion itself but rather the use or portrayed meanings given to the religions and so basically the people running and promoting them and giving others to feel superior to others.

Omoto is seen as far as I can tell by any comments I've seen before generally as some nationalistic type thing. This only shows to me a lack of understanding. It is called a 'monotheism' ( a scolarly term) but so is christianity etc. So what's the difference? Well it is also called an inclusive monotheism where the christian religion is called an exclusive monotheism. Therein lies the important difference and indeed the major fault with such 'exclusive' religions.

Nowadays there is an attempt at 'getting together' with interfaith etc. Very wise. But far from new. In fact omoto promoted this way back, not to mention historical rulers who did the same. No wonder O'Sensei said Aikido would improve all religions for it is based on all inclusiveness by the principle of love as has omoto. (As has christianity et al in truth, if only they could remember)

An inclusive religion like shinto for example is thus one of no competition....until man with his ego interferes of course.

Murray just won wimbledon...Brilliant!!! Great competition. The semi finals were outstanding too.

Competitions are great but only when non competition is understood.

Aikido is thus all inclusive and the discipline of those devine principles of non competition which indeed would correct and improve all religions.

So to shinto and indeed omoto. Not being of the scholarly and intellectual 'crew' for those who are I would say to understand O'Senseis religious (spiritual) views it is best to understand the basic difference religion wise when comparing what those of western religion think they are comparing to.

If the TeaBag Sutra isn't self-evident, please read my following attempt at a summary and then watch again.
Have fun!

" So we've chosen a way and the practice resembles the dismounting of a tea-bag.

In the beginning we tend to read everything available. We read and read and fathom out less and less. After a few years we might remember an old masters sayings that intelligence doesn't help but that foolishness will help even less. Then we give up reading.

Now we may find out that all those enthralling rules and pieces of advice,that we thought would give us freedom, will bind and entrap us more and more. One day we may be prepared to cut the moorings and let the hawsers fly.

But there is still something little noticed which keeps us tied; it's very subtle, one scarcely becomes aware of it and it's so tiny that we have difficulty in removing it, and this is our attachment to our sublime Guru, the master. In the end we may succeed and let go.

Now we can open up the bag and we see that there is a lot inside, a whole bag of psychological problems we can get rid of and things will get a lot easier.

Of course there is still the wrapper. As we continue our practice we can stretch and loosen it up, make it more flexible. We can make it straight and upright.

As we continue practicing, on a certain point of time something marvelous might happen."

Yeeeaaahhhhhh, or we can stick the thing, with all its limitations, constraints, failings, history, inconsistencies, conflicts, internalized and self-generated bindings, in some hot water and get a very nice cup of tea.

Our usefulness (call it a purpose, if you must, but I dont think it would be true) is just as much in the ways we are constrained as it is in our degrees of freedom.

Quote:

Bernd Lehnen wrote:

If the TeaBag Sutra isn't self-evident, please read my following attempt at a summary and then watch again.
Have fun!

" So we've chosen a way and the practice resembles the dismounting of a tea-bag.

In the beginning we tend to read everything available. We read and read and fathom out less and less. After a few years we might remember an old masters sayings that intelligence doesn't help but that foolishness will help even less. Then we give up reading.

Now we may find out that all those enthralling rules and pieces of advice,that we thought would give us freedom, will bind and entrap us more and more. One day we may be prepared to cut the moorings and let the hawsers fly.

But there is still something little noticed which keeps us tied; it's very subtle, one scarcely becomes aware of it and it's so tiny that we have difficulty in removing it, and this is our attachment to our sublime Guru, the master. In the end we may succeed and let go.

Now we can open up the bag and we see that there is a lot inside, a whole bag of psychological problems we can get rid of and things will get a lot easier.

Of course there is still the wrapper. As we continue our practice we can stretch and loosen it up, make it more flexible. We can make it straight and upright.

As we continue practicing, on a certain point of time something marvelous might happen."

People keep on trying to use reason, facts, etc. to respond to the poster and always seem to end up in the same place..... One definition of insanity is engaging in the same behaviors that lead to same results, while expecting different results.....

People keep on trying to use reason, facts, etc. to respond to the poster and always seem to end up in the same place..... One definition of insanity is engaging in the same behaviors that lead to same results, while expecting different results.....

END THE INSANITY!

Marc Abrams

Oh, I'm not expecting a different response from the OP, that *would be* insane after all this time. And when something posted is, well, wronger than wrong (how does one do that so consistently?) I thought that a least a few people should point that out. But when things are this far off there really is nothing left to talk about. We might as well be arguing about a cosmic teapot. Hence the first statement (the mind boggles) followed by the second (no). Really that is all that is necessary.

Oh, I'm not expecting a different response from the OP, that *would be* insane after all this time. And when something posted is, well, wronger than wrong (how does one do that so consistently?) I thought that a least a few people should point that out. But when things are this far off there really is nothing left to talk about. We might as well be arguing about a cosmic teapot. Hence the first statement (the mind boggles) followed by the second (no). Really that is all that is necessary.

I am in TOTAL agreement with you. I think that a simple statement/disclaimer response to these types of posts is all that should happen. Any more attention is simply encouraging the continuance of this proliferation of inane, useless strings of words.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

Western religions and thus cultures brought up with them are used to them being competitive. They compete and fight and war with each other and thus see themselves as superior. Of course thus they see the other as inferior. This is thus called 'normal' and considered normal alas.

Please could you define "western" religions? By this I infer that you are refering to Christianity in its many denominations and traditions. However, if I have understood you correctly I would point out that Christianity is originally a near eastern religion, indeed the early Church was a branch of messianic Judaism.

Moreover could you please support your assertion that western religions promote and encourage competition and war. Certainly there have been religious wars within Europe and initiated by Europe but this is not a result of an inherent disposition or inferior moral and ethical code from the doctrines and teachings of Christianity itself. In fact Jesus' teachings can be cited in contradistinction to the violence perpetrated in his name.

Quote:

Omoto is seen as far as I can tell by any comments I've seen before generally as some nationalistic type thing. This only shows to me a lack of understanding. It is called a 'monotheism' ( a scolarly term) but so is christianity etc. So what's the difference? Well it is also called an inclusive monotheism where the christian religion is called an exclusive monotheism. Therein lies the important difference and indeed the major fault with such 'exclusive' religions.

Define "inclusive monotheism" as Christianity could also be considered "inclusive" insofar as it does not discriminate between nationality, ethnicity, gender or age. In fact Jesus' last instructions to his disciples, known as the Great Commandment, were to go and make disciples of all nations. By "exclusive" Christianity often means that Jesus is the sole source of salvation for a fallen, sinful humanity. In this respect yes Christianity is exclusive in its teachings, but is this a major fault of the religion to believe it has the truth (with reason)? Whether the exclusivity of Christianity is a fault all depends on whether its claims stand up or not. I personally believe these claims do stand up.

For that matter, there certainly appears to be a religious war happening right now in Myanmar. Guess who the aggressor is?

One could make a good case that the aggressor was the British Empire, which encouraged the movement of the Muslim Rohingya into Buddhist Burma as part of a textbook "divide and conquer" program of colonial economic exploitation, grabbed everything it could, and at length, when managing the territory became more expensive than the diminishing economic returns it produced could warrant, walked away from the festering mess of inter-communal conflict it had quite consciously, cynically, and purposefully created by encouraging the mass movement of the Rohingya into the region in the late 19th Century in the first place. I believe the British Empire was ostensibly Christian.

Not that this excuses the behavior of contemporary Buddhists in Myanmar, but context does matter.

One could make a good case that the aggressor was the British Empire, which encouraged the movement of the Muslim Rohingya into Buddhist Burma as part of a textbook "divide and conquer" program of colonial economic exploitation, grabbed everything it could, and at length, when managing the territory became more expensive than the diminishing economic returns it produced could warrant, walked away from the festering mess of inter-communal conflict it had quite consciously, cynically, and purposefully created by encouraging the mass movement of the Rohingya into the region in the late 19th Century in the first place. I believe the British Empire was ostensibly Christian.

Not that this excuses the behavior of contemporary Buddhists in Myanmar, but context does matter.

FL

Well if it was part of a textbook operation then it certainly wasn't taken from the Bible. In fact this would support the Bible's teaching that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. British imperialism was not modelled on Christianity.

Please could you define "western" religions? By this I infer that you are refering to Christianity in its many denominations and traditions. However, if I have understood you correctly I would point out that Christianity is originally a near eastern religion, indeed the early Church was a branch of messianic Judaism.

Moreover could you please support your assertion that western religions promote and encourage competition and war. Certainly there have been religious wars within Europe and initiated by Europe but this is not a result of an inherent disposition or inferior moral and ethical code from the doctrines and teachings of Christianity itself. In fact Jesus' teachings can be cited in contradistinction to the violence perpetrated in his name.

Define "inclusive monotheism" as Christianity could also be considered "inclusive" insofar as it does not discriminate between nationality, ethnicity, gender or age. In fact Jesus' last instructions to his disciples, known as the Great Commandment, were to go and make disciples of all nations. By "exclusive" Christianity often means that Jesus is the sole source of salvation for a fallen, sinful humanity. In this respect yes Christianity is exclusive in its teachings, but is this a major fault of the religion to believe it has the truth (with reason)? Whether the exclusivity of Christianity is a fault all depends on whether its claims stand up or not. I personally believe these claims do stand up.

Thank you, I look forward to your reply.

Hi Ewen,
nice post. I'll endeaver to explain.

First let's clear up what I mean by western religions. Basically I meant those religions controlling Europe as the predominant ones in the last few centuries at least namely forms of christianity. In other words the ones most of us from these here parts were brought up with.

Your citing of Jesus and his words I fully agree with. I did point this out in the op and said cheekily if only they remember. So I also pointed out that the religion itself is not at fault but only the egos of men in them.

So, to the crux of the matter, given by me so as to anyone else saying it or having said it before well I would assume someone must have some time or other. The crux being this: on the concept of no competition and the concept of transcending competition it brings me to a couple of fields where this is stated quite regularly and those fields are spiritual and also religious.

Now, in history shinto on the whole was very tolerant religion as was Buddhism. In fact I would say Buddhism spread and covered a great part of the world at one point but did so without war which was very unusual for a religion. But as with most things those of ego and power hungry tend to take positions of Authority in such things and in comes the ego and there goes the peace and harmony.

So I think you'll get a gist of where I'm coming from.

So being an inquisitive kind of chap I ask questions and also leave unanswered questions hanging in the ether until one day I come across something that answers them. So, always wondering how a religion could fall to such lows of promoting wars and all kinds of horrific things I would leave that hanging too for the what I call egocentric, 'intellectual' reasonings never satisfy my curiosity. They do make sense though because they are made by unenlightened people. Then there are many, in fact the majority of normal sensible people who I have met from various religions and daily life who all say they know true religion wouldn't do or promote such things so to me Bill the dustman can therefor be much more enlightened than Professor blog.

Now to 'inclusive monotheism' and 'exclusive monotheism' . As I said they are 'scholarly terms', little ole me using such.......blasphemy!!!

Anyway, having a reality on no competition spiritually and then coming across these terms and what they mean finally answered a few questions. Shinto, omoto and such were called inclusive and christianity and such were called exclusive.Now the reason for this was indeed to do with the religions themselves. Shinto has many Gods and yet they originate from one, thus one true source God. Thus it is natural for those of such culture and belief to acknowledge all other faiths and their God too. So when one comes along and says they only believe in the one true God then that's fine also for it means the source God, the original creator. Thus these type of religions are called inclusive.

Now the interesting bit is the label exclusive. So remember these are 'man made' labels of course as usual, but as a label it says such a religion believes their God is the real and only God and thus other religions are inferior. Their God is the ONLY God. That calls to ego like a plate of food to a starving man. That breeds competition.

So you can see it's nothing to do with the enlightened, divine persons within the religion but only of the manipulators of the religion. For in true religion I would say there cannot be competition unfortunately there is heaven, earth and man and man is still not too bright.

It is interesting to me that all those past enlightened folk tended to mention the same things, namely love etc. as being the way yet all the followers end up .....well, I don't think I have to tell you.

I don't know if you ever watched the old David Carradine Kung Fu Series but it reminds me of the two where he meets the blind priest. Wisdom from both sides, excellent.

So to me as with true budo is love so it is with true religion too and thus both should be all embrasive. Both are beyond egotistical competiton and duelism (spelt that way on purpose)